Em Tue, May 27, 2014 at 06:35:17PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) escreveu: > On 05/26/2014 11:17 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Can you try the attached patch on top of the first one? > Patches on patches is a way to make your testers work unnecessarily > harder. Also, it means that anyone else who was interested in this It was meant to highlight the changes with regard to the previous patch, i.e. to make things easier for reviewing. > thread likely got lost at this point, because they probably didn't > save the first patch. All of this to say: it makes life much easier > if you provide a complete new self-contained patch on each iteration. If you prefer it that way, find one attached, that I was about to send (but you can wait till I use your program to test it ;-) ) > > It starts adding explicit parentheses on a ternary, as David requested, > > and then should return the remaining timeouts in cases like signals, > > etc. > > > > Please let me know if this is enough. > > Nope, it doesn't fix the problem. (I applied both patches against 3.15-rc7) What was the problem experienced? > > P.S. compile testing while sending this message :-) > > Okay -- how about some real testing for the next version ;-). I've appended Hey, you were provinding that real testing! thanks for that! :-) > my test program below. You can use it as follows: > > ./t_recvmmsg <port> <timeout-in-secs> <bufsize>... > > (The timeout can also be '-' meaning use NULL as the timeout argument.) Thanks for the test proggie, will use it. > Cheers, > > Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
